oh dear oh dear
The article that I read highlighted by FB's post said that BA had estimated the cost of laying off staff this year and next to be £200m. However, "company sources" said that the cost so far was only £20m. The amount set aside (pesumably provisioned in the accounts) was £80m.
According to these "company sources" some 7000 staff out of an estimated 13000 due to go have left without any severance payment. As this is about half the total number, I presume that taking half the total estimated cost gives the "windfall" of £100m. This is also confirmed by the nameless BA executive's confidence that total costs will be just under £100m.
Using this argument is like saying "If I go out this afternon to buy a new car it will cost me £25,000. Therefore, if I don't go out this afternoon to buy a new car, I'll have saved £25,000." Taking this analogy further, if I don't buy a new car this week, I'll have saved £25, 000 per day so my savings will be £125,000 by the weekend.
FB, where in the article does it mention that this "windfall" will be distributed to 50,000 managers by way of bonus? Thats a bit like me telling my wife that she's got £125,000 to spend because I didn't buy a new car this week. Just because you don't spend money that you haven't got, doesn't mean that you have to go out and spend it on something else!
Don't forget that the average journalist knows as much about finance as they do about aviation. Please don't compound their errors by making up bits to fill the gaps.
cur